tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News July 26, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
well, and senator mike lee. good night. >> objection. >> overruled. john: america's legal system is a mess. politicians pass too many laws. >> they can cite me or arrest me. john: also because prosecutors want to look tough on crime. >> big bad john. john: innocent people go to jail. >> they lie saying that all this evidence. john: some cops bully people into confessing crimes they didn't commit. >> the system failed us. john: their friends try to help them. >> it's over. >> i'm never getting out of here. john: and sometime they succeed. >> i'm now a free mess. john: the legal mess. that's our show tonight.
[ applause ] . john: our legal system is a mess. every single lawyer's due takes forever, and the guilty get away with it. but at the same time lots of people are locked up for things they didn't do. we know that now because dna evidence is more available. these innocent people were jailed. >> i was wrongfully convicted of a murder and rape of my friend, and i spent almost 20 years in prison nar crime. >> i spent 11 years and 3 months in prison. >> 20 years, 9 months and 5 days in prison for a crime i didn't commit. john: how does that happen? tim lynch runs the project on criminal justice for the cato institute. the system is not as accurate as people think it is? >> it's not. our system is badly flawed. more flawed than many people want to admit, john.
as you said since dna evidence came on the scene, we discovered we've got hundreds and hundreds of people who had their lives shattered because they've been thrown in prison for crimes they didn't commit. john: chris christie said without question america has the fairest criminal justice system in the world. >> well, mr. christie i think is wrong. john: he's a former prosecutor. >> he wants to tell people what they want to hear. if the government is getting it right 95% of the time, you know what that means? it means 100,000 people are in prison who don't belong there. so mr. christie, maybe 95% is good enough for him but not good enough for a lot of us. john: people say i bet that 5%, they did something else. they wouldn't have been in there if it hadn't been something? >> finding out so many cases one after the other where there are scandals. police have manufactured evidence against people. we also know that prosecutors are very ambitious. they are evaluated by their conviction rate.
>> sometimes they've moved onto other office. john: and they're punished for -- for, what was? sorry! a crazy person took some of my papers, but i still have what i need here. what were you saying? >> sometimes we find the prosecutors have violated their disclosure obligations but move onto other offices. the governors, the senate. john: they don't get punished for breaking their own rules. >> they don't. when the rules aren't enforced, we get more violations. john: the police are objective in their investigations, on the tv shows they are, mostly. >> right, again most police officers are fair but there are a number of police officers out there. they coerce confessions. we've had instances where they
go into interrogate somebody and come out and say they confessed to me. they didn't record it but willing to go into court to say john stossel confessed this crime to me and willing to testify to that, and juries more likely than not believe the police. john: we don't realize their pressured to close cases, they get promoted if they close the case. >> exactly, if you want to head the homicide division, you better be cracking and solving homicide cases. that leads career pressure to take shortcuts and break the rules. john: here's an example of that. chicago police commander was thought to be a great cop. great cop. he got lots of bad guys jailed. in and then it was discovered that he tortured innocent people into admitting to crimes that they didn't commit. this man was one of them. >> he shot me, i was suffocating. he thought i was dead. john: after being tortured he
confessed to murder and served for 30 years. finally one of his victims sued him and another few people said yeah, i got tortured. this evidence was mounting so high that the authorities couldn't ignore it anymore and that first they ignored it because they believe the police officers over the people that have been arrested and accused of crimes. and the city of chicago paid about $100 million litigating all of these cases. saying that he tortured me tortured my brother, she would put bags over peoples heads so they couldn't breathe, electrocute people until finally they couldn't say anymore and they would say whatever it was that he wanted to hear. john: this guy tortured people and he served how long you maxie mackey was sentenced to four years and he was out in two years. john: now he is collecting $4000 a month police pension. >> i don't know what they are thinking in chicago.
what does somebody have to do to lose his pension? john: if you confess, it means that you did it? >> yes, innocent people would never confess to a crime they didn't commit. but dna evidence p have lots of innocent people that have confess to crimes they didn't commit. john: birds was not the only one that extracted false confessions. one chicago mother served eight years before it was discovered that the evidence did not support the confession that she gave. she told the police that she had strangled her or your old son. why would a mother confessed to that if she didn't do it? >> welcome here is why. >> heiress was interrogated for 27 hours after her 4-year-old son accidentally strangled himself with a fitted bedsheet. >> how do you say that you did something they did not do?
you know? i never understood that until it happened to me. john: it is hard to believe. twenty-seven hours of interrogation is pretty awful. but i would still think -- i wouldn't say that i killed my child. >> what happens if they put you in a small room, you have detectives yelling at you. saying that they know that you're guilty. people can withstand it for a few hours. but when the detectives get to take breaks and you don't and they send in another guy that scratch continue the interrogation for hours, people began to break down and they will give an admission or confessed to the crime. that is such powerful evidence in court because the average person says, why would anybody say that if they didn't do it? john: we do not have video of nicole harris's confession. but we do have video confession of frank stirling, he served 17 years after confessing to killing a woman.
and then someone else confessed to the crime. here he is, admitting that he did. >> something happened with that gun. [inaudible] >> one more question. i need you to be honest with this question. [inaudible] you didn't dream up this idea. you did this. is that right? [inaudible] john: the cops didn't put the idea into his head, he says. he did it. he served 17 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. it's hard to believe but it happens repeatedly. one of our audience members served 16 years. jeffrey, can you come up here? to join us up here?
when he was a teenager he was convicted of eating and raping and then strangling a classmate to death. did you do it? >> absolutely not. >> why did you confess to it? >> because i was interrogated for seven hours and i was in fear of my life and overwhelmed emotionally and psychologically. i was six years old. i was threatened and they also claimed that if i said what they wanted then they would stop what they are doing and i can go home afterwards. >> before your trial, dna results came back and did not match you. >> that's exactly right. i was convicted anyway. john: flight is that? >> because they didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake. john: you served 16 years, how did you get out? >> i was exonerated by further dna tests which not only reaffirmed my innocence but identify the actual perpetrator whose dna was only in the
database because i was doing time for his crime and he struck again, killing a schoolteacher. john: they found his dna and then you are free. did they say that i'm really sorry that i did this to you? sumac none of the people involved did. john: new york state pg-13 million dollars and you started the foundation? >> yes, it's called the foundation for justice. we work to free people. we won a case a year and a half ago. we help people reintegrate back into society. and many people have resulted in immigrating back into society. [applause] john: you all say that one that reform is that if all these
interrogations were videotaped? >> yes, then juries would be able to understand as to why they might admit something. another benefit is that it will prevent cops amusing details left out of their testimony. it makes for better evidence and it protects honest cops false allegations. john: groups like the innocent project to get innocent people free. the innocent project made this video where several people spoke. >> today i am a free man. [cheers] [applause] >> i want you to recognize that i am now a free man. >> this man was released after spending 11 years in jail for rape. >> dna evidence proved that he was innocent. now he's grateful that he can be with his grandchildren. >> i can hold them in my arms
and take them to church. >> i can really relate to him. to put it in human terms, i miss high school prom, birth, death, holidays. the rites of passage. there is no amount of money that can make up for that. john: thank you. later in the show, our studio audience gets to award $1000 to the winner of the wacky warning label contest, the contest that seeks out the stupidest lawyer drivel driven warning tags. william graham saw a blow dryer that warned users, do not use while sleeping. we will show you even dumber. but first, how reliable is eyewitness testimony two do you remember that woman who ran in here and stole papers on my
[cheers] [applause] john: if i were a juror on a trial and i heard an eyewitness say yes, he is the one where i heard the police testified that the them had picked the defendant of a police lineup, my instinct would be to believe them. but they saw pictures and they said that that 10. here is a convincing example. this woman was raped. later she picked her convict attacker out of the convicted lineup. >> if i lived, i said i wanted to memorize everything about this person. there is a sense that one of these has to be the suspect. and it's my job to find him. and i wanted to be very
confident and sure, so i took the time. that's when i held up the picture and said that this is the man who did this. and they said are you sure and i said that i'm positive and they looked at me and said we thought that was the guy. >> that was ronald cotton sitting next to her and he served 10 years. he was pretty good-natured about it then. and eventually dna evidence suggested that another man had committed the crime and that man confessed that he was the rapist. so how can a rape victim be so sure and so wrong? she said that i memorized his face. >> eyewitnesses normally do, because of the stress involved during a violent confrontation, the adrenaline rush him and they make mistakes. no matter how confident they could sound in court, dna shows us that they are sometimes wrong. >> and the police may say yes,
they may just lose the two of them? >> yes, and they may not even tell the defense about the other two witnesses. john: here is a more recent example as to how they are often untrustworthy. police shot a man who they said had threatened them with a hammer. but the eyewitnesses told "the new york times" that they didn't see hammer and it looked like the man was trying to get away from the officers when he was shot. one witness said that i saw a man who was handcuffed being shot. then the police released this video. >> the suspect was seen attacking christine officer just before the cops partner fired four bullets. >> when he turned around, that officer is calling for help and she's backtracking and he swings. you can see that he swings at least three time's the one in slow motion you do see that. >> that is right. and researchers show people, and
then they will ask them the next day, what did you see. if you have people saying that i remember the broken glass all over the place. it and you look at the video. there was no broken glass. the research shows us that people do make mistakes and they are not even aware. they sound confident about what they saw but the video tells us a different story. >> you remember that woman who ran through the studio and stole some of my papers? asked her to do that. i wanted to see if the police showed a lineup with you in it would you be able to pick her out. take a look at these women. which woman stole my paper? so i will ask you one at a time. who thinks that its number one? nobody. number two? number three? number four? number five?
number six? and okay, it was actually number three half of you were right. thank you for doing that. and so you would have let her off. half of you, and convicted this number 6%. we don't even know who she is. thank you. i hope have you people are not in the jury box. [laughter] and coming up next, you could go to jail for feeding the homeless
[cheers] [applause] john: one reason that the legal system is such a mess is because politicians do not think that they are doing their job unless they pass more laws. no legislator ever brags about laws that he repeals. but there are exceptions. some politicians are like this eager regulator. this man recently proposed to raise the state legal smoking age from 18 to 21 years old. >> you have have to be 21 or so to purchase alcohol in the state, 21 to purchase marijuana. it's time to make the age 21. john: 21 a general can go to war, but they cannot smoke or drink. they used to be able to drink at age 18, but politicians keep making laws stricter. almost always more laws. washington state hasn't yet
raise the smoking age but hawaii did and recently new york city good. lawmakers claim that raising the age will lives, but elizabeth woolley says that laws like that don't save lives at all. >> they actually save some lives around the margins. but think how much you could save in terms of lives if you raised the minimum age of smoking or drinking to 35 years old or go to 100. many times you prohibit people from doing anything and you are probably going to save lives because almost everything we do is risky. >> you will save lives among those who obey the law which is a certain portion and you also probably kill people with the black markets that you create and cheating that you encourage. >> yes, we have seen that with the war on drugs. and part of that we were pretty much free to consume whatever we wanted to consume.
i think there's more people dying now let us experiment, we are adults. [cheers] [applause] john: and other stupid laws. in some towns, limousines or cabs have to charge people more. fifty dollars, houston, miami, $70. why is that? >> is laws are classic anti-competitive laws. they are designed to protect the taxi monopoly. the taxi is going to be much cheaper and it also cuts out companies like uber and lyft. john: in tampa, the taxi
attorney said that the minimums they are prevent cutthroat competition. >> cutthroat competition is competition. i like it because it gives me more choices as a consumer and lowers the prices. [cheers] [applause] >> other stupid laws. cohabitation is illegal in florida, mississippi, north carolina. >> it is considered lewd and lascivious conduct. >> it may be used as leverage some time. you bring someone in for another crime. you threaten them for the prosecution of cohabitation is to get leverage. john: moving on from cohabitation, which i don't think requires you to do this thing, but adultery does and that is illegal in 20 states. and there's a lot of that going on. i'm pretty sure that.
>> it's not just the misdemeanor state like michigan, massachusetts, wisconsin. it is a felony and this is a serious crime and there have been highly publicized incidents in recent years. there was a guy in virginia back in 2003 with the town attorney and he got prosecuted for adultery. john: in a lucky, you need a license to go out of business and in georgia you can't live on about for more than 30 days without a permit. and so on. there's always a reason for these. i know that a lot of those guys cheap. this will protect us from those
people. >> that is the ultimate insult, to have to get the governments purse permission not to do something we could get rid of half a loss the lost tomorrow and we would be a happier country. [cheers] [applause] john: thank you. coming up next, the legal attack on the economy policy that politicians are going after. >> we are not properly regulated.
oftentimes the car is filthy and the seat belt at work. i shouldn't be surprised because the taxi business is a government micromanagement oblate. there's no price competition. know it all lawyers and politician politicians set the pricing. there's no competition when it comes to servicing either. but they're a couple of years ago, entrepreneurs started a ridesharing company which is now huge, uber. they created an application that allows people to drive their own cars and connecting with people that need a ride. i love these services. they are no more expensive but the uncertainty is gone. i know when the car is coming and thanks to their reputation-based rating system, i know the drivers names and their reputations. this encourages both of us to behave better.
because ridesharing services are better, they are taking customers from a taxi monopoly. >> they are not properly regulated. and they want regulation. in france here are protesters dropping a rock on what they think is a uber car. thankfully american politicians are not that bad, but they are not good either. hillary clinton recently raised questions about workplace protections. >> as president i will work with every possible partner to turn the tide and to make these currents of change start working for us more than against us.
to strengthen and not hollow out the american middle class. john: that is so nice that she will turn the tide and rescue the middle class. she implies that every freelance drivers should have to be an employee and not an independent contractor. of course that would mean more rules. uber would have to provide health care, sick pay, and so on. several states have ruled that they must and ridesharing companies should have to pay for that. and so why? >> the kind of company that you are talking about makes all kinds of promises. they tell the drivers how much they're going to make, they tell the drivers what percentage they are going to take. they tell the drivers where they have to go. they have protocols. so the question becomes how are they not employed mainemac
yellow cab industries, they go where ever wherever they want, they pick up who they want. john: you want the competition to be employees? >> in california, they have promising. if you work for us, we did guarantee it. john: the driver volunteers to do that. >> here is what happens. they came in a california company took over the market in san francisco and san diego. john: that they are better. it's nicer. >> bitter about the competition and then they started raising their rates. taking more from their drivers, they went from 20% to 25% to 30%. john: anybody with one of these can start one of these companies. >> i don't know how many people in the audience take uber. >> how many of you take it?
>> that is the point. because one company becomes dominant in that it puts everyone out of business. john: the guys that purchased these taxis purchased them from the government for a million dollars apiece. john: were members got ripped off by the government monopoly to that point. >> you know, it's not fair. john: was it clear the company is that made bogeys and horses and carriages, that they went out of business? >> of course not. technology is not bad and we don't pulpit. the part of the problem, they have actually held us back. they told us when we could put this in our car,.
john: now you are stuck. [cheers] [applause] >> you pay a million dollars for it. john: on that note, maybe he will someday. coming up, the easter bunny toy carries the warning that this toy is not intended to represent living people. any resemblance to this is not intended to harm anyone. why is that necessary? it's not. so when we come back, you get to award $8000 to this year's wackiest warning label
♪ some neighbors are energy saving superstars. how do you become a superstar? with pg&e's free online home energy checkup. in just under 5 minutes you can see how you use energy and get quick and easy tips on how to keep your monthly bill down and your energy savings up. don't let your neighbor enjoy all the savings. take the free home energy checkup. honey, we need a new refrigerator. visit pge.com/checkup and get started today.
some doctors and companies are more careful and there are a few bad products that pull from the market, but for every person that the trial lawyers save, they will kill two people because the lawsuits have horrible unintended consequences. first they discourage innovators from offering us products. like new vaccines and companies gave up on an aids vaccine and a lyme disease vaccine because they said they were afraid of being sued and secondly the lawsuits waste so much of our time that we spent hours filling out paperwork, mostly useless paperwork and it doesn't make us safe is just a cover for possible lawsuits. third, the lawyers make everything cost more. they add $500 to the price of a car. a pacemaker costs thousands mourn and even haircuts cost more and because of lawsuit insurance not keep.
>> finally the other injury and this brings us to the fun part of the segment and that includes putting all kinds of different ridiculous warning labels on the product. bob jones who covers lawsuit abuse for the center for america runs a wacky warning label contest, giving $1000 to the person who cements the stupidest warning label. labels like this. >> the common smoke alarm that says warning. intended to temporarily silence but one. it will not extinguish a fire. [laughter] john: wide? >> the purpose of the contest is and doesn't make fun of companies that have these warnings out on products but to help reveal what kind of a legal system they are operating in so that they they are constantly looking over their shoulders for lawsuits. he sued the net makers and
$50,000. >> so somebody sued saying that i thought that this was going to put out the fire and they're supposed to to read the label not going to make a difference. >> as you know, warning labels are becoming so absurd that experts are telling us that fewer and fewer people read warning labels. john: have you ever seen the warning label on a birth control pill? >> i haven't. john: both sides and if you did read this. >> nobody reads these. >> we do this contest every year and we get reporters from japan and germany, all the people that we were competing with for jobs, they want to know why americans have these warning labels. it's just unbelievable to them the one i asked my twitter audience where there's justice
for stupidest warning label and one person printed a label on a child's shirt that says remove child before watching. [laughter] and how about the one that says don't iron clothes while wearing them. and aaron gibson cemented the label on a bottle of sleeping pills that says warning, may cause drowsiness. >> he keeps running the contest. so what are your other finalists? >> we had this 1 inch tall toy, kids love these, it expands to about 10 times the size, but the warning label says that this is
in no way intended to represent living people. any resemblance is coincidental and not intended to harm anyone. >> we have gotten to our societies. >> another one is theirs. catfish. this -- why would they say that? >> there's one common denominator. you failed to warn us. so in order to avoid the failure to warn, they over one. and a warning bowling alley says
[cheers] [applause] >> we are back with our guests to take audience questions. but first you get to pick the winner of the wackiest warning label contest. raise your hand if the one you think is the stupidest and the first is this. >> a smoke alarm that temporarily silences while you identify and correct the problem. it will not extinguish a fire. john: the 1 inch high toy says that this is not represent living people. >> okay. >> the patio door warns that the door may swing open or closed in windy conditions, or it could hit a person causing injury.
>> and then there is the fish. and i think that we have a clear winner here. >> risk of bodily injury is associated with this. john: the winner is james andrews in college station, texas. he wins $1000. in second place is the gro choi, they get $500. and then questions from the audience here? >> this question is for the professor. i'm wondering what you think is more of a problem. not following the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.
>> as someone who really cares about the letter of the law, i think that that is the most important. because if you don't follow that, that really means nothing and then who would define what the spirit of the law is. that is exceedingly difficult. >> which do you think is more of a problem? the fact that there are not enough good laws or the fact that they are earning on the books are not being implemented in the way they should be? >> we talk about how america doesn't have a loser pays system. but we do for frivolous lawsuits and most of the states. and a judge can throw out a lawsuit and find the person but they rarely do it for a number of reasons. they want to get reelected, they want everyone to be happy. there's reasons but not good
reasons. >> if there's taped confessions of the people that committed the crimes, why isn't the full interrogation so that the defense can prove that it was forced? >> in most cases the confessions of interrogations are not videotaped. but where they are defense attorneys try to bring it into the court. video technology is now cheap and widely available. there's no excuse anymore for not recording interrogations from beginning to end. >> and all of your years of doing this, what is your favorite? >> that's a good question. it would have to be a warning label on with three folks dangling off the end and it says warning, harmful if swallowed. john: make you. bob, elizabeth, that is our show for the night. stay away from lawyers if you
can. see you next week. [cheers] [applause] right now on "justice." maybe the heat is getting to everybody. >> i don't know about everyone, hilla hillary, but the heat is definitely on you. are criminal charges in order? plus, the donald at the border. we're joined live by a trump adviser about the gop frontrunner's big week and what's next in the campaign that everyone's watching. then -- >> who's that? >> florida. i forget what his name is. >> more than 20 candidates for president, but do you really know who they are? i hit the streets and you won't